Embedding Creativity and Innovation In the Engineering Curriculum

Professor Dennis McKeag

School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, BT37 0QB. (D.McKeag@ulster.ac.uk). Tel: +44 02890 368599. Fax: +44 02890 368580.

Abstract One of the challenges facing engineering faculties is the matter of embedding creativity and innovation into undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Creativity is perceived to be the domain of the arts, and the general understanding of innovation is any change. In industrialised society people expect originality, ingenuity and novelty from new or improved products processes and systems, and these factors are the basis of creativity. It follows that since most of products, processes and systems in industrialised society are based on engineering and associated technology, it is imperative that these values are an integral part of engineering education, and that innovation, which is the commercialisation of creative design, is also taught as a fundamental element in the education of an engineer. Having spent fifteen years as a professor in a Faculty of Art and Design and subsequently transferred to a Faculty of Engineering, the author has developed a well tried and tested system for embedding creativity and innovation in engineering courses, and this paper provides insight into the system and its success. Key Words: engineering; creativity; innovation; education, industry

1.

Background

In much of the western world in the mid to late twentieth century engineering in universities was perceived to be an academic discipline requiring a sound knowledge of mathematics and relevant sciences. When graduates from programmes made their way into employment they had to learn to be engineers. In the relatively uncompetitive world of the nineteen fifties and sixties employers could afford the luxury of training graduates for a protracted period in the hope they would eventually become valuable to the business. In any event manufacturing companies adhered to traditional practices in both design and manufacture. Product development was a slow process and change was rarely radical, and of course the customers would always be there. This perception was put to test from the seventies onwards, with the emergence of Japan as a world industrial power. Japan produced products that were well designed and manufactured to the highest standards of quality, and their problem was one of satisfying demand. European and American businesses lost out in the head to head competition. Certainly in the UK There was a realisation that something was wrong with our engineering and in particular our engineering education, but what? Engineering had been responsible for the industrial revolution, and people such as Robert Stevenson, Isambard Kingdom Brunnel and Thomas Edison championed this

revolution. Engineers such as these had a sound and ever developing knowledge and understanding of their subject. They had good problem solving skills, could design and lead design and manufacture teams. They were certainly creative and innovative. Various initiatives have been taken since the nineteen seventies to address weaknesses in the taught engineering undergraduate programmes. These have incorporated more design, more business more management etc. Often this has simply resulted in engineering courses that have moved away from the traditional values of engineering undergraduate courses based on science and mathematics, towards courses based on vocational skills such as detail drawing, and administration, masquerading under titles such as product design and engineering management. Industrialists realise that the engineering leaders of tomorrow cannot come from courses such as these. There is a realisation that engineering by tradition has been a creative and innovative activity and the need is to instil these values, exhibited by people such as Stevenson, Carlson and Edison, into engineering courses whilst retaining the requirements of mathematics, engineering science and abstract modelling; knowledge and skills so necessary as the basis for design and development of todays complex high technology products and systems on which our modern world depends. Educationalists and government in the industrialised nations are struggling with the problem of how to get creativity and innovation into the engineering curriculum (1)(2)(3). At a recent seminar/workshop attended by the author recently (4), it became apparent that the experts had problems understanding what creativity and innovation are, and rather than guiding the audience, the speakers were searching for solutions. It is this experience that prompted the writing of this paper, and hence put into the public domain something the author has been successfully practicing for many years.

Engineering, industrial design and (fine) craft design are the roots of all the design based professions in the context of product, and this article will focus on creativity and innovation in this context, although the concept expounded is equally relevant to other design based professions such as software engineering and architecture. Before embarking on how to teach creativity and innovation in the context of engineering programmes it is worthwhile reflecting on what creativity and innovation are, and what these terms mean (or should mean) to engineers. Create generally means to make something (out of nothing), and is associated with being original, novel, expressive and imaginative (5). In terms of engineering creativity can be said to embrace these terms and have value to the client or customer. Innovation can embrace creativity in that it in the context of engineering it is generally accepted as the commercialisation of ideas that are the result of creative thought. It follows that anything that is innovative should be a candidate for intellectual property protection. The problem about discussing creativity and innovation is that if a group of individuals are asked to define these terms, there will be as many definitions as there are persons in the group. The reason is that these are non-verbal activities. In the traditional engineering sense, or perhaps to be more correct the scientific sense, if the same group of individuals were asked to define Newtons laws of motion, Ohms law or Kirchhoffs law, provided they knew and remembered what they had previously learned, all would give the same answer. The reason is that these are verbal activities and hence can be defined. This difference between verbal subjects and non-verbal subjects to a large extent explains the reason why engineering academics are keen to teach verbal subjects to the exclusion of the non-verbal. By way of illustration, as a young lecturer engaged in teaching design to second year industrial design students almost forty years ago, I set the class an exercise in design of an electric kettle, a fairly standard exercise for such students. At a time when electric kettles had a broad round base, were as tall as they were broad, had a handle across the top, and a pouring spout opposite the industry standard electrical connection. One student designed what we now call a jug kettle. In assessing it I commented critically on the need for a non standard heating element to fit the small base, the fact the base was small meant that the product would be unstable, and with the handle on the side instead of at the top, the product had poor ergonomics. The student got 54% for effort but in academic terms I was not impressed. Roll on a few years and Jug kettles had taken over the world. Clearly on reflection the student had produced a unique design that was capable of widespread commercialisation, creativity

was inherent and for my part I should have been ushering that student off to the nearest patent office! It is now obvious that I should have applied assessment criteria that went beyond cold metrics. So this raises the questions, how can we recognise creativity? how can we teach it? and how can we incorporate it into our courses?

2.

Observation

It is apparent from how the terms are used in the public domain that creativity is associated with something that is a bit different and innovation is taken as any change no matter how trivial. It follows that the first thing we need to teach students is how to recognise creativity and innovation in general and also in the context of their chosen profession. In a historical sense observing creativity and innovation in the context of engineering is easy, we have so many icons to choose from. Examples are Robert Stephenson and his steam locomotive, Thomas Edison and his telephone or Chester Carlson and his Xerox machine. We can look at people such as these and what they achieved, we can see that they were creative individuals, they developed creative products that were truly innovative. However following the industrial revolution something went wrong, the creative spirit seemed to dry up as engineering became sanitised, respectable, and was introduced as a taught university subject. As suggested in the previous section, academics find it easier to assess verbal subjects where there are the firm foundations of metrics, science and mathematics to support their knowledge, and it is probably for these reasons that the subjective and qualitative material that is the basis of the non verbal activities such as creativity, design and innovation were largely ignored or lip service paid to them. At this point I feel it is appropriate to quote from an article by Jeremy Clarkson (6): In two million years man managed to discover only three important things: fire, the fact that wood floats and the horse. Then within 100 years he came up with everything else. Railways, cars, aeroplanes, antibiotics, electricity, the telephone, the computer, photographybut then we arrived in about 1920 and everything just stopped. Mobile phones, the word processor, the Eurofighter. They are all just developments of ideas that came along in the nineteenth century. Although not strictly true, it is easy to empathise with this view. Engineers are no longer perceived as being creative or innovative. Today engineers do not invent cars they fix cars, we do not invent railway engines we drive them, we do not invent the Xerox machine we service it, or at least that is the public perception. But is this perception unfounded, can our graduates recognise creativity? Are they creative? Do they have the skills necessary to commercialise creative ideas? Will you teach them what they need to know? Clearly we need space in our curriculum where students can be taught the history of engineering with particular emphasis on the radical innovations, the people and the creativity behind these innovations, and the science and technology underpinning their realisation. By putting this historical knowledge together in context, students will see the value and relevance of their course material, realise that innovation is the work of creative individuals, and begin to recognise creativity and innovation in every day life. This brings us to the second part of this approach, what concepts, theories, skills, techniques, knowledge and information to students need to underpin their creative and innovative activity?

3.

Knowledge, Cognitive and Practical skills

This area can be divided into two sections, generic knowledge and skills, and subject specific knowledge and skills, although there is no clear distinction between the two. It is generally accepted that there is a body of creativity approaches and techniques that can be used by virtually everyone. Perhaps the universal creativity technique is brainstorming, or perhaps more accurately brain writing. Usually when individuals want to engage in creativity this is what they do and little else. However there are many other techniques and approaches and these include morphological analysis, forced connections, new combinations (these three together are a good combination), checklist, performance specification (chapter 3 of Total Design is a good source for this one)(7), and interaction matrix. Basically look up any good design book and a number of such techniques will be included. Some techniques are more suited to different phases in the innovation process, for example exploration of the problem, generation of ideas, or selection of concept. Some are better suited to systems design, some to product level design and others to

design of components. Some textbooks give guidance but students will soon find out through practice what techniques or approaches to use and when. In more recent years user centred design tools has came to the fore in respect of creativity and innovation. The theory is that if products (processes or systems) are designed around the user experience then the product will experience greater market penetration, it will be more intuitive and easier to use, and fewer mistakes will be made. A good source of user centred design techniques is The Design Council web site (8). Quite a few theory articles and articles relating to creativity approaches tools and techniques can be found on this site. Some of my favourites are scenarios, role-play, immersive experience, shadowing, drama, as well as the established favourites of user trips and user research. Many of these techniques require team participation and there is no better way of getting a team to gel than having them create and act out a five-minute drama based on the problem in hand, or create scenarios and analyse them, or play the role of customers in for example the product life cycle etc. One example of creativity techniques at work involved the five whys and immersion. We were engaged in the design of a new precinct sweeper (Figure 1). The market leaders are Johnston and Schmidt. The company NC Engineering wished to diversify into this new market area. To get into the market required that the NC Engineering machine should be better than the opposition and ideally have a unique selling point that had value to the customer (A relative advantage based on Rogers Criteria for successful Product Innovation (9)). In one team discussions between the academics and the company the hopper became the focus of attention together with the water jet spray and suction system. In the dominant design of precinct sweepers there is a tank for water and a hopper for debris. In dry days perhaps around 200 litres of water is carried in the water tank and this is sprayed ahead of the rotary sweeping brushes at the front of the precinct sweeper. The brushes sweep the debris into the path to the vacuum that sucks it into the hopper. Of course the water is also sucked into the hopper, and it passes out through a filter and falls into the water tank to be re-circulated. Under discussion was the problem of optimising the size of the hopper and the size of the water tank. It was deemed desirable that the good relative advantage would be to have the biggest hopper on the market for that class of vehicle. However no matter how hard the engineers worked on design and associated calculations this objective was not possible within the constraints of the required water carrying capacity. By asking why two tanks were necessary and following through the creative experience to its ultimate conclusion, we realised that the water tank could be dispensed with altogether by simply using the hopper to store the water in the first place (combination, one of the tools of associative thinking). This meant we met the objective of the biggest hopper on the market and by default, the biggest water container! Re-cycled water was now simply drawn out of the base of the hopper through a filter. A patent application was prepared in support of this invention. As can be seen, this engineered product met the criteria for creativity (original, novel, valuable to the customer), and it was innovative (intellectual property and it was commercialised). This case study example identifies the need for the study of concepts in engineering activity. Rogers Criteria for successful product innovation is mentioned, but others include Rothwell's criteria for successful industrial innovation, the marketing mix (or four Ps), the Ansoffs Matrix and many others. Concepts help us to understand how creativity and innovation has been successful in the past, and we can be reasonably assured that if we adopt such concepts at relevant stages of our work then we also stand a good chance of being successful. Basic skills required of an engineer are drawing and modelling. In the past the drawing skills were predominantly the generation of formal orthographic and isometric drawings. Today the CAD systems have largely replaced formal drawing skills and can do so much more. For example three-dimensional visualisation, dynamic computer models, downloading computer files to a rapid prototype machine to produce realistic models etc. The computer can also undertake calculations to verify the integrity of the design under consideration. Mathematics and science as applied in engineering are a form of abstract modelling and in theory form the basis of all engineering activity. In reality mathematics and science are used as an occasional check in most industries to ascertain that the design is fit for purpose. Unfortunately in engineering education academics generally provide the students with a situation already modelled and students are expected to calculate the right answer. In engineering practice the problem has to be modelled then calculations performed. Of course a reserve (or safety) factor is always added, ranging from around 50% for class 1 structures in aircraft design to perhaps 2000% for some civil engineering structures. The lesson here is that engineering students have to learn to model situations, but once having generated the model a ballpark analysis will generally suffice.

4.

The Creative and Innovative Process

As a general rule the process will begin with a need, want or opportunity, and finish with a product (process or system) launched onto the market. The process describes the discrete stages in the innovation from beginning to end. BS 7000-1:1999 Design management systems Part 1: Guide to managing innovation, and BS 7000: Part 2: 1997 Design management Systems Part 2: Guide to managing the design of manufactured products, are good start points to understand the process of innovation, whether it be at strategic, project or tactical level. However the process will depend upon the profession, the industry, the company and the individual. In the authors experience all companies have their own unique approach to managing creativity and innovation, but BS7000 is recommended as the reference standard. Where this is taught to students, they can use it as a reference point for all other processes they experience. The process of innovation is not necessarily sequential It is in fact iterative as many avenues are explored and many refinements occur before a solution is arrived at. In most companies it is a simultaneous or concurrent engineering activity whereby different parts of the project are at different stages of completion. However the planning is such that all completed components, sub assemblies etc arrive in time to be part of the overall structure. This process is particularly used in large engineering projects such as shipbuilding or civil engineering works. However most mechanical and electrical engineers in practice will not experience true concurrent engineering, they are much more likely to experience concurrent product development such as occurs in the aerospace industry, or concurrent design such as occurs in the electronics industry. The process of innovation in large companies is allied to a well-documented process that includes freeze points or stage gate management at the end of each stage in the process. The objective here is to ensure that as more resources are committed, the technical feasibility of the project is increasingly assured and the commercial viability of the project is more certain. It should never be the case that projects fail for technical reasons. It should be accepted these days that technical malfunction is unacceptable at any level thus the need for excellence in engineering design. However commercial viability can rarely be guaranteed and there is always an element of risk. It follows that all engineers must be able to manage projects, generate business plans, and undertake commercial risk assessment of projects. In addition to financial and accounting skills, the graduate engineer needs to be taught skills relating to marketing, market research, advertising and promotion. Too often the engineer focuses on what are called functional properties when undertaking innovation. However when was the last time you bought a product and were totally engrossed with the elements of practical function such as motor, controls, clutch etc? As a general rule the practical function is taken for granted, and as noted above, these days technical malfunction is simply unacceptable. People make largely emotional decisions when deciding to purchase. How else do you tell the difference between a Ford Mondeo, a Volkswagen Passat, Toyota Avensis etc? In emotional terms we all have values and we each react differently to different products. The point of marketing is to ensure that what is designed finds acceptability by the targeted market sector. In consequence engineering designers must be clever, not simply well educated. This means taking into account sociological functions (the benefits to the user in their society), ideological functions (personal values), physiological functions (how the senses react) and psychological functions (mental reaction). Basically people now react much more to emotional and value factors than they do to practical function. An example comes from a confidential document where a leading automotive company (10) benchmarked its new vehicle against the best of the competition. The benchmark was based on economy and performance. Of one hundred persons who tested both vehicles, 100 stated that vehicle A had better fuel consumption compared with vehicle B, and 99 persons concluded that vehicle A also performed best. Any engineer knows that other things being equal these factors are mutually exclusive. The manufacturer of vehicle B performed more sophisticated engineering analysis of both vehicles. They determined that whereas the noise attenuation in their vehicle was excellent with literally no noise ingress during acceleration, within the competitor car a noticeable VROOM could be heard. The ergonomics in car B were almost perfect, but in car A a soft layer of foam caused the driver to sink back into the seat under acceleration. In car B there was a perceptible lag (about .3 of a second) between the throttle being pressed and getting a response from the engine. Car A on the other hand displayed no such perceptible lag (it was < .2 of a second). The fact was that although the designers of vehicle B had embodied perfect engineering, the producers of car A had been clever because they had also designed with the physiological senses in mind. Car B did in fact under laboratory conditions perform better than car A, but driver perception was the opposite!

The process of innovation requires organization and the team is normally multidisciplinary. Interdisciplinary skills are necessary to manage such activity hence the need for the engineer to have a knowledge and understanding of other professions involved in the creative and innovation process. The organization of the innovation process varies across companies. Students need to be taught the functional or over the wall organization, the matrix organization, the project led approach etc. There are many different ways of organizing multidisciplinary teams and with knowledge of each the engineer can plan the best to meet the needs of the parent company.

5.

Practice makes Perfect

There is little point in teaching students about innovation and creativity if they do not actually practice it. In schools of Art and design the emphasis is on practice but in the context of engineering it is necessary to spend time gaining knowledge, particularly that related to mathematics and science that is so essential for abstract modeling. However engineers can learn to observe, they can learn creativity approaches and techniques and they can learn process. In fact almost anyone can be taught the fundamentals of creativity and innovation, what sets professions apart is the knowledge, skills, principles and practice unique to each profession. In teaching creativity and innovation it is useful to make the analogy with learning to drive a car. It is possible to teach a person in a classroom to drive a car, and set a written examination they may well pass. However those of us who drive realize that without experience driving is a very mechanistic process, and well nigh impossible first time without the advice and guidance of an experienced tutor present in the vehicle. The driver has to content with accelerator, brake and clutch, gear changes, mirrors, other road users, the weather etc. The vehicle is used in a constantly changing three-dimensional spatial environment, and of course rules have to be observed. It is the same with creativity and innovation, all that has been discussed before is of little value if the students do not have time to practice, ideally in teams. In earlier years of the engineering programmes my own approach is the use of case study material and perform an analysis with students. The analysis will use the terminology of an engineer and will point out techniques, skills, concepts, theories, process etc. as explained above. This is supplemented by guided case study material, client generated exercises, and self generated project activity, industrial visits and lectures by industrialists. In the final year the creativity and innovative activity is introduced in earnest. Innovation is a one semester long module and takes one third of timetabled hours. Generally the MD of a company with whom I am research active will allocate the students a number of real industry based leading edge projects ahead of the projects being released to the companys own engineers. The projects always require creativity and innovation since solutions to these problems or situations simply do not exist. Students are given access to company information on request, much of it commercial in nature. The students have to form (typically) four man teams and provide a technically feasible and commercially viable solution by the end of the semester. Beyond the introductory lectures on creativity and innovation, the students devise their own module syllabus and lecture programme once they have sight of the problems facing them. The problems are carefully engineered to ensure that students have to engage with practically all of the information and knowledge communicated in this article and more. The problems are always so big that they would be impossible for an individual to solve in the time available. Assessment is through report submission team presentation to company representatives (usually the MD and one other) and to two academics. The report is assessed on industrial merit. This class has been running in various guises for over twenty years. Approximately half the projects undertaken by students in that time have progressed to become commercial innovations by the sponsoring company. Many of the students have set up their own engineering businesses and statistically are trading well above the national average.

6.

Conclusion:

It is possible to successfully embed creativity and innovation into engineering courses. The underpinning philosophy offered here is well tried and tested. It is based on the fact that creativity and innovation are nonverbal activities and as such cannot be taught in the traditional sense. The secret is to create a learning environment for students whereby through the four elements presented and discussed in this paper, students can gain a firm knowledge and understanding of creativity and innovation, and associated products, concepts, theories, skills, techniques, subject specific knowledge and information.

The four elements are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Observation, to learn to recognize examples of real creativity and innovation in ones own discipline Knowledge, Cognitive and Practical skills both general and discipline specific The Creative and Innovative Process in generic terms and as it relates to ones own discipline Practice makes perfect, but work on projects that are real and require creative and innovative solutions

Working closely with innovative companies reinforces practice and, particularly in the final year, provides a natural platform for transition from academia to industry. It is in industry we need our best engineering brains if our societies are to grow and prosper. In an industrialized society real wealth can only be created through successful manufacturing industry. In the face of global competition it is through creativity, ingenuity and innovation that our industry will create the goods people like, can use and want to possess.

Figure 1: The N C Engineering Precinct Sweeper with integral hopper/water tank References:

(1) Unlocking Creativity making it happen; A publication by the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, DETI, DoE, and HEFTE; 2001 (2) The Creativity Question what sort of education produces the most creative people; www.improve-education.org (3) Norman Jackson; Imaginative Curriculum Nurturing Creativity Project; LTSN Generic Centre; 2003 (4) Symposium: Understanding and Embedding Creativity in the Curriculum; University of Ulster; March 19th 2008 (5) Collins Universal Dictionary

(6) Jeremy Clarkson; Dont Stop Me Now; Penguin, P272; isbn: 978-0-718-14905-5; 2007 (7) Stuart Pugh; Total Design Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering; Addison-Wesley, pp 44-66; isbn:0-201-41639-5; 1990 (8) (http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/) (9) Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn), London, Simon & Schuster (10)Confidential document